On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 23:19 +0200, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > On tor, 2008-05-08 at 08:35 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote: > > > I am not sure this is the same topic, but I have already raised doubts > > (on the wiki and in the bug report) that we should extend the > > Squid-specific helper interface significantly beyond its current > > relatively simple state. I still believe it is worth discussing whether > > more complex uses should be routed through ICAP or eCAP instead of > > slowly inventing yet another complicated and poorly maintained traffic > > adaptation interface. > > I think Mark is talking about the store url rewriter. It's a cache > maintenance function, not really modifying the request/response in any > manner, and I don't see how to fit that in ICAP or even the goals of > eCAP. > > But it's possible eCAP may grow in future to include such things..
Agreed on all counts: store rewriting does not fit ICAP or current eCAP scope well, but eCAP scope may change. My comment still applies, I think. ICAP and especially eCAP do not really care what the vectoring point is. They just "rewrite" messages that we feed them with. The purpose of that rewrite (in a broad sense) can be a cached URL maintenance function, for example. Alex.
